Dubai Ports: Shame on the Democrats!

I'm American, and I agree with old europe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander for whatever reasons. World commerce is already established; the use of "security" as a justification for denial of free trade is not just. It's based on fear. There's a big difference between crime and economics. No matter who perpetrates crimes - whether foreign or domestic - they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws.

Nope. Not at all. What Walter said, Tico. Hot porridge.

You're saying it's absolutely okay what the US are doing in blocking a foreign investor, citing national security.

You're saying that, if other countries did that vice versa, blocking US companies from investing, it would be absolutely okay, too.

I'm saying, "well, I'd love to see the outcry that would generate".

And you're making that into "You would love to see negative things happen to the US", "blame America first", "you want the US going down" clamour.

You're a hoot.

"Security" is very subjective. Who determines what constitutes "security?"

I misread it the first time. My mistake. Mea culpa, and all that.

"The sovereign country in question."

And all the mariad subjective interpretations that in the final analysis will make no sense at all.

Tico, Actually it's your "and?"

DUBAI DISGRACE

The blocked port deal reflects poorly on US politicians

Walter, Good article; it supports my thesis about how subjective free trade restrictions based on "security" usually results from anything to do with economics or security.

March 15, 2006

Dubai Company Plans to Sell All Its U.S. Operations
By JOHN O'NEIL
DP World, the state-owned Dubai company that dropped its bid to manage American ports in the face of bipartisan opposition, said today that it planned to sell all its United States operations to an American-controlled company within the next six months.

But the political tussling over port security continued today, as House Republicans blocked an attempt by Democrats to add money for cargo inspection and other safety measures to a $91 billion emergency spending measure for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Last week, facing virtually certain Congressional action, DP World gave up on a deal to take over the terminal operations of some of the nation's busiest ports, including some in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and Miami. The contract to run those ports was held by P&O Ports North America, a subsidiary of a British company being bought by DP World.

While Democrats were the first to raise questions about putting operations into the hands of a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, Republicans came out against the deal as well. President Bush pledged to veto a bill to block the takeover, arguing that it would send "the wrong signal" to the world about American willingness to trust an Arab ally. But after Republican leaders informed the White House that any veto would be overriden, DP World pulled out.

In its statement last Thursday, DP World pledged to "transfer" its leases to an unnamed American company. That drew concern from members of Congress, who said it left open the possibility that DP World might keep control through an American subsidiary.

Today's announcement seemed designed to dispel those fears. During a conference call with reporters, Michael Seymour, the president of P&O Ports North America, said that the sale will be to "an unrelated American buyer."

"I cannot emphasize enough that it will be an American buyer," he said, later explaining that he was ruling out any American company that was a subsidiary of a foreign-owned firm.

Representative Peter King, a Long Island Republican who led Republican opposition to the deal, said today that the announcement "on its face seems to cover all the bases."

"Obviously, we'll be monitoring it to make sure," Mr. King said. "To me, the key thing is that it can't be a subsidiary or affiliate of a foreign-owned company, it has to be an independent American company."

Senator Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat, called the announcement "good news," according to The Associated Press.

"This is the first time we have gotten clarification that the intent is for full divestiture," he said. "That's what we have been seeking from the beginning."

The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said moments before DP World's announcement that company executives had earlier promised to transfer their United States businesses, "and it's important that they fulfill the commitment that was made."

While today's announcement appeared to remove the final doubts on the direction of the port contract, the issues of foreign ownership and port security continued to draw attention on Capitol Hill.

Democrats today tried to add more than $3 billion for new port security measures to the larger emergency, but were defeated on a procedural vote, by 224 to 192.

Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, made it clear that his party hopes to push whatever advantage it gained from being in the forefront on a national security issue.

"If Republicans are now deciding to get on board, then we welcome them," he said, according to The Associated Press, "because for so long they have been on a sinking ship, basically saying that our ports are secure."

The House Majority Leader, Representative John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, replied that the government was already providing "as much money as we could spend without just throwing money at the problem," the news service said.

A bipartisan bill was introduced by the House committee on Tuesday that would require that all port employees with access to secure areas be checked against terrorist watch lists and that all containers be scanned for radiation. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Operations Committee in the fall, and will be the subject of hearings next month, a spokesman for the committee said. And Mr. King said the House would move forward with a bill that was passed by the Appropriations Committee by a 62-to-2 vote barring foreign ownership of port operations.

The statement released by DP World in Washington said that "an expedited sale process is under way" and that the company hoped to complete the transaction in four to six months.

The statement said that until the sale was completed, the ports would be operated independently by P&O Ports North America. DP World is moving ahead with the purchase of P&O Ports operations elsewhere, the statement said.

DP World's aborted deal to take over the American port operations has been described as being worth about $700 million. Some analysts have questioned whether it is likely to get that much given the forced nature of the sale.

Few large American firms are involved in port management, and the runner-up to DP World in the bidding for P&O was a company from Singapore. Some analysts, however, have suggested that some big American private equity firms involved in other logistics businesses might be interested, particularly at a depressed price.

In the conference call, Mr. Seymour said it was too soon to name any potential purchaser. "We are very encouraged that there has already been significant interest in the sale from American buyers," he said.

In the announcement last week giving up on the takeover of the American ports, H. Edward Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer, said that the decision "is based on an understanding that DP World will have time to effect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss."

Mr. Bilkey said the company would be working with the Treasury Department on the sale, but Mr. Seymour said today that the company had not requested any specific help. "We do envisage that they will wish to see this transaction go through in a positive way," he said.

Friday, March 24, 2006
U.S. less safe after Dubai fuss?

Security chief Chertoff says company could have bolstered safeguards at many ports.

The Associated Press



NEW YORK - The U.S. missed an opportunity to make its shores safer when it drove away a Dubai-based company poised to operate cargo terminals at several American seaports, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said yesterday.

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Chertoff said the international shipping firm DP World could have helped implement stronger security at many ports where the U.S. now has limited influence.

"We could (have) actually built in some additional assurances, which would have given us more security in the wake of the deal than we had before the deal," Chertoff said. "The oddity of this, the irony of this is that had the deal gone forward, we would have had greater ability to impose a security regime worldwide on the company than we have now."

DP World, the world's third-largest ports company, got a role in loading and unloading cargo from ships in at least 20 U.S. ports when it purchased the British company Peninsular & Oriental. The Bush administration defended the deal, but under pressure from Congress, the company said this month that it will sell its U.S. businesses to an American buyer.

The decision followed a month of attacks by critics who said they did not trust a government-owned company from the Arabian Peninsula to be given a sensitive role handling cargo at U.S. ports. DP World is owned by the Emirate of Dubai, which is part of the United Arab Emirates.

Chertoff, however, said DP World has a good record with U.S. authorities and has long been trusted to help move U.S. military materiel and personnel.